Now the toughest regulator in the federal government has to be even less understanding that there is no such thing as absolute safety, perfect people or failure proof machinery in order to “prove” itself to the critics.

They suggest that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has damaged its credibility by not rigorously enforcing every regulation that has been layered onto to the books during more than 60 years of ratcheting in which new regulations did not result in revisions or elimination of old regulations. Their proposed solution to the NRC to regain credibility is for the agency to force some plant to shut down and to refuse to issue some operating licenses.

The NRC must also be scrupulous about licensing new plants. If an operator proposes a site that is too close to an earthquake fault, or too close to oceanfront that is vulnerable to a tsunami or hurricane storm surge, or downriver from a huge dam that could burst, then the NRC should reject the bid. Similarly, if the utility could not protect spent fuel pools or casks from being breached during a severe accident, which happened in Japan, the NRC should not license it. Saying no to a suspect plant would do more than anything else to restore public confidence.

I guess the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE new nuclear energy production facility has been proposed and licensed since the NRC was first created by splitting the Atomic Energy Commission into two separate pieces is not enough. Now the toughest regulator in the federal government has to be even less understanding that there is no such thing as absolute safety, perfect people or failure proof machinery in order to “prove” itself to the critics. The editorial ends with another example of what I call “damning with faint praise.”

Nuclear power has a good safety record, but when it fails it can fail catastrophically. Now is the time to make tough, transparent decisions that could regain public trust. Otherwise, the public might make the ultimate call: “no more nukes.”

Several good comments already existed in the thread responding to the editorial, but there was an idea that had not yet been introduced, so I added the following:

Nuclear energy is not in competition with a perfect energy source that operates without pollution and without imposing any risk. That unobtainium does not exist except in the minds of dreamers and a few science fiction writers.

Nuclear energy competes head to head with flammable, explosive, dirty hydrocarbons (coal, oil, natural gas, wood, and other biomass). Those fuels are the products that are found, extracted, processed, transported and sold for enormous piles of cash by some of the world’s largest, oldest, and most politically astute multinational corporations.

Petroleum pushers are also some of the world’s most active advertisers, providing a substantial source of revenue for the most influential portions of the established news media.

Though some multinational oil&gas corporations dabbled in the fuel cycle side of the nuclear energy business in the early years, they have little to no involvement in the technology today. Some of their early involvement included uranium market manipulation that helped tie Westinghouse up in court for a decade.

My assertion is that nuclear energy scares people whose wealth and power derives from the fact that the world’s industrial economy rests on the back of hydrocarbons that can be burned to produce reliable heat. We use that heat to control our local environments, to provide useful domestic and industrial power to do work, and to be converted in thermodynamic energy for motion (transportation).

Because uranium and thorium both contain at least 2 million times as much potential energy as oil, the most energy-dense hydrocarbon, and because they release energy in the same form (heat) while producing a tiny quantity of waste material that can be readily and safely stored, they pose a massive competitive threat. Uranium and thorium cannot completely replace fossil fuels, but allowing their use with fewer artificial constraints can increase the world’s energy supply enough to drive fossil fuel consumption and prices WAY down.

Demanding “perfect” transparency is a red herring. There are legitimate security needs AND there are fanciful security threats that can be posed to tie nuclear facility operators and system designers up in logical knots. Companies are damned if they release information and damned if they work to keep it secure. Security provisions add substantial cost. Binding up the competition is EXACTLY what the hydrocarbon hawkers want – that lets them keep earning TRILLIONS of dollars every year selling fuels to “their” markets.

Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights

I would be interested in your response. Don’t you think that the editors of one of the premier magazines covering science and technology for the general public should have just a bit more understanding of the fact that no technology is absolutely perfect?

Rod Adams gained his nuclear knowledge as a submarine engineer officer and as the founder of a company that tried to develop a market for small, modular reactors from 1993-1999. He began publishing Atomic Insights in 1995 and began producing The Atomic Show Podcast in March 2006. Following his Navy career and a three year stint with a commerical nuclear power plant design firm, he began ...

A guest says:

I beleive we should do everything possible to scale up On and Off Shore Wind Farms, PV Solar Systems and Thermal Solar Collectors, Geothermal and Geoexchange systems, Energy Conservation, Leed Buildings, Mass Transit, non food based biofuels, Electric Vehicles and their needed infrastructure of recharging stations, Water Conservation, Local Farms and all other forms of clean sustainable, non polluting, zero waste,minimal health and environmental risks options as possible. Natural Gas needs to be regulated to minimize the risk of hydraulic fracturing. The grid must be upgraded to eliminate the inefficiencies. Thorium and liquid salt reactor techology should be developed so it can be commercialized to phase out uranium fueled systems.

A guest says:

This is serious and REAL and the US government has been working on it for 10 years. Please take 15 min and explore the link provided

Andrea Rossi has given three demonstrations so far including with professors from Bologna University and the Swedish skeptics society and the Chairman of the Swedish Physics Union. This is an directory of Rossi efforts http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator. This is a link to the LENR site where detailed information about cold fusion efforts is available. www.lenr-canr.org/News... The US Naval Research lab has been working on this with positive results for over 10 years and has confirmed it existence. Yet the major scientific magazines refuse to touch this issue since it was purportedly discredited by some researchers and an institution that stood to lose 10s of millions in funding per year in hot fusion. Government funded hot fusion systems have never produced surplus energy after years of research billions invested.

Rossi has announced a 1MW Cold Fusion facility to be opened in Greece this Oct. Still top line periodicals have yet to publish even one article. This will change the economics of the world lifting many people out of poverty and it will also threaten many vested interests.

http://pesn.com/2011/05/17/9501827_Ampenergo_Amps_Up_Rossis_Energy_Catalyzer_in_America/"..Ampenergo was founded by Karl Norwood, Richard Noceti, Robert Gentile and Craig Cassarino. It is important to note that Robert Gentile was the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) during the early 1990's. This helps confirm Rossi's claim that tests of the E-Cat have been observed by the U.S. Department of Defense and the DOE. It is very likely that at least certain individuals in the DOD and DOE are aware and interested in the Energy Catalyzer. However, their silence is deafening.

It is unknown if any military or secret government research is taking place, but there are unsubstantiated rumors floating around the internet of the US Navy using a nickel-hydrogen cold fusion reactor to power a submarine. Although the rumor is not likely to be true, if they have known about the technology for a couple of years, it is possible testing is taking place. Trillions of dollars go missing from the DOD budget on a regular basis, and the money is obviously being spent on something..."

FROM LENR-News Rossi 6-hour demonstration convinces Swedish expertsApril 2011On March 29, 2011, a test of a smaller Rossi device was performed. It was attended by two new observers: Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics and chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society, and Sven Kullander, chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' Energy Committee. They agree with other independent observers that the device must be producing a nuclear reaction. See NyTeknik: Swedish physicists on the E-cat: "It's a nuclear reaction." This test employed a new, smaller device with a 50 cm3 cell. It produced ~4.4 kW for 6 hours, or 25 kWh (90 MJ).Essén and Kullander wrote a report, also in NyTeknik, Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device at the Leonardocorp, Bologna 29 March 2011. Focardi gave a revealing radio interview. Here is an English translation.NyTeknik has published a number of articles about Rossi. They are all listed here. The New Energy Times is keeping a close watch on news articles about Rossi. They have a list of articles here.

Plans to begin commercial cold fusion reactor production this yearMarch 2011A company has been formed in Athens, Greece, Defkalion Green Technologies S. A., for the purpose of manufacturing and selling Andrea Rossi Energy Catalyzer cold fusion reactors. According to the Greek newspaper "Investor's World" and other sources, the company is capitalized at €200 million, which includes €100 million to be paid in as royalties, presumably to Rossi. The Greek press says the company plans to manufacture 300,000 machines a year for the Greek and Balkan market. The company website says it has exclusive rights to sell the machines everywhere except the Americas.www.lenr-canr.org/News...

Rossi has announced that he is fabricating a 1 MW reactor to produce hot water (not steam or electricity), scheduled for October 2011. He is building the machine in Florida before shipping it to the Defkalion factory. It will consist of 100 small devices similar to the one demonstrated at U. Bologna.We have uploaded a new paper from Scott Chubb describing the Rossi device and recent events about it.

Rossi 18-hour demonstrationFebruary 2011, updated March 2011On February 10 and 11, 2011, Levi et al. (U. Bologna) performed another test of the Rossi device. Compared to the January 14 test, they used a much higher flow rate, to keep the cooling water from vaporizing. This is partly to recover more heat, and partly because Celani and others criticized phase-change calorimetry as too complicated. There were concerns about the enthalpy of wet steam versus dry steam, and the use of a relative humidity meter to determine how dry the steam was. A source close to the test gave Jed Rothwell the following figures. These are approximations:Duration of test: 18 hoursFlow rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s.Cooling water input temperature: 15°CCooling water output temperature: ~20°CInput power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hoursThe temperature difference of 5°C * 833 ml = 4,165 calories/second = 17,493 W. Observers estimated average power as 16 kW. A 5°C temperature difference can easily be measured with confidence.3,000 L/h is 793 gallons/h, which is the output of a medium-sized $120 ornamental pond pump. The control electronics input of ~80 W is in line with what was reported for tests before Jan. 14. Input power was high on that day because there was a problem with cracked welding, according to the Levi report.18 hours * 16 kW = 288 kWh = 1,037 MJ. That is the amount of energy in 26 kg of gasoline (7.9 gallons). Given the size and weight of the device, this rules out a chemical source of energy.NyTeknik published a fascinating description of the latest experiment (in English). This includes new details, such as the fact that the power briefly peaked at 130 kW. NyTeknik also published an interview with two outside experts about the demonstration: Prof. Emeritus at Uppsala University Sven Kullander, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Energy Committee, and Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. Two versions are available, in English and Swedish.On March 3, Rossi conducted an informative on-line chat with NyTeknik readers.Rossi and U. Bologna have announced that tests on the device will continue for a year

The New York Times (Floyd Norris, page B1) had interesting articles today on the man-made disasters of the Japanese nukes & Massey coal. The coal is simple- Massey has a long history of violating safety rules then lying about it. The Japanese case is more interesting. While the disaster is an ongoing event, and the costs (& damage) continue to rise, the TEPCO (yes, the same company initially awarded 2 US contracts recently) is emulating the US model of socializing risks/costs and privatizing profits. TEPCO management, stockholders, and their lending banks are shocked that people want them to pay for their neglect and damages (meanwhile, the offshore wind farm 180 miles from the epicenter continues to deliver power). TEPCO apparently said it "would like to pay compensation to its victims", but only if the Japanese government gave TEPCO the cash first.

The last quote is my favorite. In arguing for the necessity to socialize the costs (rather than holding responsible/ taking money from TEPCO, its stockholders and banks) the chairman of the Japanese Association of Corporate Executives said he "cannot help but question how this country's democracy can be made to work with free market based capitalism". From another mouth that could mean positive social change, but he meant that TEPCO should not be held financially responsible for its failures.